Jump to navigation Jump to search
FounderMahrdad Ali Sattari
IdeologyZorasani nationalism
Zorasani militarism
State capitalism
Political Irfan
Socialism (historically)

Renovationism (Pasdani: تجددسم; Tajaddodizm; Rahelian: تاجدية; Tajdīdiyya) also known as Sattarist-Renovationism (ستاریسم-تجددسم; Sattārist-Tajaddodizm; الستارية التجدية; Sattariyy-Tajdīdiyya) or Sattarism (ستاریسم; Sattārizm; سطارية; Sattariyya) is a Zorasani nationalist ideology and the current state ideology since the founding of the Union of Zorasani Irfanic Republics in 1980. From 1952 to 1980, it was the state ideology of the Union of Khazestan and Pardaran and was the primary driver of Zorasani Unification. Historically promoted the development and creation of a reunified Zorasani state through the leadership of a civil-military vanguard party through a revolutionary government. Today, it promotes a politically homogenous society free of social divisions, through the adoption of Political Irfan, collectivism, an authoritarian state which embraces modernity, science, industrialisation and militarism. Sattarism condemns individualism, liberal democracy, secularism, aspects of traditionalism and mulit-culturalism. It was devised primarily by Mahrdad Ali Sattari in the 1920s with considerable influence drawn from the Xiaodongese Lu Keqian.

The ideology has undergone a series of transformations and reinterpretations since its adoption by the Union of Khazestan and Pardaran in 1953. During the 1970s, Neo-Sattarism emerged as the dominant strain with the adoption of Political Irfan and the abandonment of socialism, as a result the role of religion and militarism expanded. It promotes a form of capitalism known as Patriotic Capitalism, which commenators have described as neomercantilism state capitalism, with a minimal embrace of private property.


The principal authors of Sattarism (from left to right): Mahrdad Ali Sattari, Hossein Khalatbari and Ershad Radan.

The process of formulating an official ideology to support the Pardarian anti-colonial movement began in the early 1920s, in Xiaodong, where the leaders of the failed Khordad Rebellion fled. The exiles, led by Mahrdad Ali Sattari, with significant influence drawn from their Xiaodongese hosts believed that a “revolutionary, inclusive and masses-driven set of ideals” would be needed to fully mobilise the Pardarian people upon the exiles’ planned return in the future to expel the Etrurians.

Ali Sattari was primarily by Hossein Khalatbari, his closest subordinate for decades and Ershad Radan, a wealthy landowner who proved an organisational genius during the rebellion. Erkin Dostum, the ethnic Togoti, also provided key points. Radan and Khalatbari according to sources from the time sought to “interlock every principle with three binding ‘pillars’, ‘modernity’, the ‘eternal struggle’ and the ‘mystically united society’.” From these pillars, the other principles would be justified in both origin and aim. Sattari for his part, wanted to ensure that the new ideology answered what he called the “great weaknesses and vulnerabilities” of the Gorsanid Empire, to ensure that never again would a unified Pardaran and later, Zorasan fall to Euclea.

The three pillars were primarily authored and theorised by Sattari himself. Ettehâd (Unification), Peykâr-e Jâvid (Eternal Struggle) and Nojāze (Modernisation). These three concepts would be interlinked and co-equally justify subordinate concepts or principles. Unification would be the call for a classless, politically homogeneous society subordinated to the state and national interest. The Eternal Struggle, the belief that humans individually and nations are locked in a perpetual struggle for power, resources, and liberty, would justify extreme militarism, and the unification of society for its mobilisation. Modernisation would be the pursuit of science, technology, and innovation at any cost, to support Zorasan’s perseverance in the Eternal Struggle, but also be the shared purpose of a mobilised martial and industrial society.

By 1925, the ideology had been mostly formulated in a series of leaflets shared between the Khordad Exiles, while the establishment of the Pardarian Revolutionary Resistance Command and its subordinate political wing, the Revolutionary Masses Party enabled the dispatch of political cadres throughout Colonial Zorasan.

In 1950, the ideology was officially adopted by the National Republic of Pardaran following the Sattarist victory in the Pardarian Civil War. Despite initial doubts National Renovationism would find purchase in Rahelian societies, it saw rapid growth in Khazestan and ultimately overthrew the Kingdom of Khazestan in the Khazi Revolution of 1951-52. The ethnonationalism of the Kexri Republic from 1948 to 1952, and the harsh discrimination of its Rahelian population in turn saw the spread of National Renovationism there, and the overthrow of the Kexri Republic in late 1952 during the Kexri War. The establishment of the Union of Khazestan and Pardaran in 1953 proved a watershed moment in the history of National Renovationism, and the elevation of Zorasani ultranationalism within its framework. From 1953 to 1974, the ideology would not evolve or change in any shape or form, until the Irvadi Socialist Revolution and the anti-Irfanic purges in the United Rahelian People’s Republic beginning in 1972.

Rise of Neo-Sattarism

In face of sharing ideological similarities with the URPR, the last obstacle to Zorasani unification. The Revolutionary Masses Party in 1974 under Ali Sayyad Gharazi voted to abandon National Renovationism’s socialist clauses and instead, embrace a unique form of political Irfan. The Irfanisation of Zorasan began soon after and resulted in the UKP and ideology drifting to the right. The near-command economy in place since 1954 was slowly eroded and supplanted by a nascent form of state capitalism. In some ways, the Irfanisation of Zorasan and the inclusion of clerics within the party-state structure served to strengthen the totalitarian regime, as successive ideologues and party officials wedded the state to Irfanic principles and theology.

The UKP’s victory in the Second Unification War and the establishment of the Union of Zorasani Irfanic Republics in 1980, prompted a second period of evolution for National Renovationism. Key tenets on Pan-Zorasanism were abandoned and the focus turned to justifying economic reform in a manner not seen to be utterly rejecting “Sattarist Socialism.” Throughout the 1980s, the liberalising of the economy together with limited forms of social opening were in turn balanced with a greater focus on Irfan, and the role of Alawdad, its social welfarist article of faith. In essence by 1990, National Renovationsim had replaced its socialist origins by lauding the welfarism provided by Irfan.

In 1990, a new generation of party-state leaders were elected, sparking the Saffron Era. A period of rapid economic and social liberalisation, while mostly focused on opening up the Zorasani economy to private enterprise and foreign investment, social reforms aimed primarily at female emancipation and a loosening of draconian measures aimed against ethnic minorities, though this disturbed hardline elements within the National Renovation Front, outright resistance would not emerge until the 2000s. Beginning in 2001, a roll back on the enforcement of Ettehâd, repeated measures at removing clerical influence from policy making and a proposal for secularising the Union to ease ethno-sectarian tensions provoked a severe backlash from hardliners in the party and the Zorasani military.

The effects of overly speedy economic liberalisation and poorly executed privatisations destabilised the national economy, which was exacerbated by the global 2005 Great Recession. Stark income inequality and the degradation of state enforced collectivism, ultimately led to political upheaval, mass protests and civil disturbances in what became known as the Turfan. The Saffron Era came to an end in mid-2005, when the party leadership of the era was removed from power by the Party and replaced with hardliners backed by the military and most of the population.

Many of the reforms instituted during the Saffron Era were rolled back and the hardliners reinstituted draconian state control over society, while reorienting the economy back toward state capitalism. The three pillars of Sattarism were restored as the guide posts of Zorasani society and by 2009, most of the economy damaged caused was repaired.



Modernism or Modernity is what Sattari described as the “central pillar of the great process.” It is an all-encompassing term that covers the rollback and destruction of traditionalism, certain cultural and social norms and what Sattari further described as “reactionary sentimentalities.” Sattarists believe that traditions and antiquated thought undermined the Gorsanid attempts at modernisation and northernisation during the 19th and 18th centuries, ultimately resulting its collapse and the partition of the empire between Euclean colonial powers. In order to ensure the continued survival of a reunified Zorasan, it must adopt the ideals of “modernity”, science, innovation, industrialisation and urbanisation.

The pursuit of Modernity according to Sattarism should come at any cost, including the destruction of cultures, traditions, norms, the environment and even social harmony if it leads to the emergence of a modern, dynamic and industrial Zorasan. This was the primary justification for the Modernisation and Harmony Campaign during Zorasani Unification. The specific targeting of nomadic ethnic minorities or communities and forcing them into sedentary urban living is one such example. Sattarism also notes that traditions and sentimentalities lead to the fossilisation of society and ultimately moral and social decay, decadence and immobility. The only traditions to be upheld are those of the political, artistic, musical and poetic varieties. This also requires the repeated elimination of “old thinking” so that the “nation may forever be in lockstep with the innovations of the day.” In 1928, Sattari wrote, “either we proceed from this day in mind of science, innovation, technology and industry, or we shall forever languish in feudalistic farms under the boot and banner of the Euclean.”

Collectivism and Ettehâd

Sattarism embraces and advocates a totalitarian state in order to foster what Sattari termed Ettehâd (meaning unity and or union) and to fully mobilise the potential for achieving modernity. Ettehâd as a concept also embraced the ideal of a “new Zorasani society and citizen”, in which the nascent ethno-cultural identities established during the colonial period and during Zorasani Unification would be repressed and abolished, and in their place would be a shared citizenship and national identity. Sattarists therefore reject the existence of Rahelia, Togotistan or any historic homeland of its constituent peoples, rather there has only ever been Zorasan and to say otherwise, is to promote “society dividing Eucleanisms.”

Sattarism denounces individualism and self-interest and advocates through Ettehâd, the establishment of a harmonious and singular society bound together by the state within the boundaries of the state. This collectivism is justified through the belief that unquestionable loyalty to one another and to the state, would best permit Zorasan to mobilise its population into pursuing modernity and protecting itself from a possible return of Euclean domination. Ettehâd posits that the state exists beyond the physical realm and reaches into the “emotional, psychological and spiritual realms of human existence” and that any group, action or individual outside the state is “worthless and a threat to the whole.” Erkin Dostum a prominent author of Sattarism said, “the new citizen of the Union must think the Union, live the Union and feel the Union, there can be no instance where his existence does not interact with the boundaries of the Union.”

As Sattarism views the world and human existence through the prism of “eternal struggle”, it also seeks a politically homogenous and harmonious society to ease the “prosecution of the Union’s struggles against the rest.” As such, Sattarism continues to advocate to this day, a society bound by Ettehâd structured like an armed force; hierarchical, ranked in which command and obey permeate throughout. This lends into Ettehâd’s description of society as comprised of three parts, the “worker, cleric and soldier”, with the soldier at the top commanding those below. Just as in the army, in society there would be no class conflict, nor selfish individualism or desires, no one’s individual contributions are greater than any other as everyone is but a singular piece of a greater machine. As such, Sattarism aims to balance competition between individuals and group solidarity, to a degree that individual success is seen as the benefit to all and the state.

Militarism and the Eternal Struggle

As stated above, Sattarists view the world as a “eternal struggle between peoples and nations”, ostensibly viewing the period of Euclean imperialism and colonialism as the “age of defeat for one half of humanity and victory for the other.” While this worldview justifies the establishment of a collectivist society, it also justifies the embrace of militarism. According to Sattarism, the military is the “manifestation of nation’s soul and capacity for violent struggle.” The military is furthermore, the embodiment of Ettehâd, as it abolishes class, ethnicity or culture. Inherent to Sattarist militarism is a Machismo, a veneration of the male as the “martial, strong and fearless soul, who’d prefer martyrdom over defeat, martyrdom over the death of his nation.” The embrace of militarism is also rooted in the origins of the ideology. It was developed concurrent to the establishment of the Pardarian Revolutionary Resistance Command, an armed insurgent group that sought to expel the Etrurians from Pardaran during the Great War and Solarian War and is intrinsically rooted within that group’s ethos.

Militarism in Zorasan permeates throughout society and features prominently in state propaganda.

The role of the Eternal Struggle (Peykâr-e Jâvid) according to Samir Shafawi is key to understanding the unbridled militarism of Zorasani society and state, according to him, "the simplicity of Peykâr-e Jâvid in reducing the entire universe to good versus evil, a near incessant struggle for air by human beings and nations and the apocolyptic belief in a final battle against perceived enemies permeates every strata and ediface of Zorasani life. It justifies all, from totalitarian control, statism in the extreme and the adoration of the military and all things martial to the point of cult-like supplication.

As Sattari stated in a speech in 1952, “we must strive to become the apex predator of this continent. We must strive to build a state of the military and by the military so that never again do Euclean boots step on our blessed land.” This call for a “military with a state attached” was eventually enforced in the Union and Khazestan and Pardaran and later, Zorasan following unification. In practice, this militarism takes a different form in which society as a whole is expected to show deference, loyalty and obedience to the military, which “by virtue of its success in achieving unification lays claim to greater power and influence than any other institution.” The military is the ultimate political authority and arbiter of the state in Zorasan today, seen through the powers afforded to the Central Command Council.

Today, Zorasani militarism maintains its view of every dispute through a militaristic lens, in which every dispute must be met with “bastions”, “barricades”, “trenches” and “mass mobilisation.” The military is deified as bother protector and leader of the nation. The veneration of the soldier and martial affairs ostensibly leads to a societal deference to officers and commanders who possess a national public profile. The Marshals of the Union, the eight most senior officers of the armed forces are "heads of the nation in their own right" and their words, statements or pronouncements are at times treated in a manner similar to the "gospels of the prophets" according to some commentators.


Sattarism holds a distinctively statist and authoritarian view of liberty, insofar that liberty is only enjoyed and exercised by a collective whole (a society or nation), rather than the individual. The statist view was encapsulated by the Sattarist belief that nations required liberty before their citizens, which Sattari described as a "freedom from foreign control, domination and exploitation." If a nation is free from external control, liberty for its citizens would be guaranteed. By conflating liberty with national sovereignty, the Sattarist view subtracts the accompanying liberal democratic provisions of personal liberty and freedom. The authoritarian and collectivist approach to liberty is defined by the Sattarist rejection of individual liberty in relation to the concept of the eternal struggle of human existence.

What is liberty for individual outside the state? It is non-existent, for the individual will fall victim to the eternal struggles alone and embued with a selfishness that will see them no different from prey upon the plains, surrounded by predators. Liberty is only enjoyed within the state and part of the state.

Mahrdad Ali Sattari, 1950

The authoritarian basis is rooted in the Sattarist view that liberty would be guaranteed "post-national liberty" by the vanguard party (Revolutionary Masses Party and later the National Renovation Front) which would not be elected by the populace because the party would have at its heart the common good, collective interest and be the embodiment of the people. Sattari further viewed the Party as the manifestation of the state, therefore, the Party's binding of the populace into a singular harmonious united society (Ettehâd) would in of itself, constitute the guarantee of liberty.

As a result, Sattarist liberty is seen as reductivist and an extreme reaction to Euclean colonialisation and imperialism, by both conflating and limiting liberty to national sovereignty, it purposefully abandons and rejects individual liberty and freedom. The justification of a police state was anchored by Sattari in his vision of liberty by saying, "liberty within the realms of the eternal struggle requires a perpetual mobilisation of the masses, such a demand of the state will forever require a merciless approach to security. Security against the eternal enemy and their agents within the Union is the paramount duty of the state in defence of its own liberty."


Under Sattarism, the concept of individualism is denounced and rejected as the "degredation of human nature and the manner in which we were created by God." Sattarism argues that while humans were created to be naturally social and communal creatures, centuries of Euclean falsehoods and heresies of nature had fostered a culture of limitless selfishness and the adoration of self-interest over the community and nation. Just as see with Ettehâd, Sattarism seeks to abolish any limit to the state's involvement or control over the lives of its citizens and to foster a sense of communalistic "oneness." Sattari saw the establishment of Ettehâd within society as the key to a successful totalitarian state, while rejecting criticisms of such following the Great War and Solarian War. Sattari argued for a totalitarian state on the basis that only a "complete state" (Dowlāt-e Basānd) could create a new Zorasani man, society, nation and guarantee the liberty of the nation.

There can be no realm, no action, behaviour or activity that is not conducted within the guidelines or boundaries of the state. There can be no space within which a Zorasani man or woman is one unto themselves, for this space shall become a breeding ground for the ideals, sentimentalities and ways of thinking that unleahsed upon our people, the tyranny and violations of the Euclean colonial.

Mahrdad Ali Sattari, 1930

As the pursuit of a reunified Zorasani state within Sattarism did not constitute the physical reconstruction of historic borders, it also required the creation of a new society post-unification. While the New Zorasani Society (Tâze Jâme'e Zorasāni) concept was not utopian, it was viewed as a "rebirth into a state of harmony, peace and tranquility." To achieve the establishment of a new society, the state would be required to regulate and be present in all aspects of life. This meant the regulation of culture, art, music, poetry, sport and social interaction toward a new normal, the ever presence of a watchful state through mass surveillance and data gathering to ensure cooperation of citizens in embracing this new society. While such demands would naturally lead to a police state, this would also be necessary in view of the wider eternal struggle between Zorasan and the nations of the world. While Sattarist totalitarianism lacks the notion of a "leader", a singular individual in which the state and populace or dedicated to in executing their will, Sattarist totalitarianism supplants the "leader" with the collective state, in which even the individuals who hold the levers of power are subject to the same notion of subordination to the state which they operate.

Mass events such as Solidarity Day serve the Sattarist call for "perpetual mass mobilisation."

An integral element of Sattarist totalitarianism is the notion of "perpetual mass mobilisation", mostly through the use of Government-organized demonstrations and rallies. The Zorasani public holiday calendar is marked by numerous events dedicated to celebrating labour, motherhood, ingenuitiy, scientific innovation and national unity. The Zorasani state controls every means of mass media in the country, which is mostly geared toward perpetuating the notion of national unity and harmony and the achievments, real or imagined, of the Zorasani nation, including its predecessors as far back as antiquity. Samir Shafawi wrote in 1999, "Zorasani totalitarianism differs in many ways to historic examples, Functionalist Gaullica, the Greater Solarian Republic, or perhaps even the Soravian Second Republic, it lacks a singular charismatic figurehead who wealds untold power and authority, but instead coalesces the populace around a near mythical-collective government, which is comprised of the most talented and loyal revolutionaries, it seeks to coalesce through mass mobilisation, endless provocation and incitement and an esoteric vision of unity that consumes any notion of individualistic life."

According to Hans Daluege, the apparent success (by longevity) of Sattarist totalitarianism (with its subsequent mobilisation of the national population) resides within its construction as a means to helping society overcome the cognitive dissonance and emotional trauma stemming from Euclean imperialism and its corresponding physical, economic and material suffering. Its allure in providing a clear socio-cultural-political route from a humilitating past to a near utopian future defined by economic, technological and cultural successes by fostering a togetherness and "solidarity in achievement" results in verifiable support of the populace. Sattarist totalitarianism, according to Daluege further detracts from historic cases of total power and control for one individual, to the benefit of a totalitarianism that seemingly seeks to maintain the fantasy of this bountiful, harmonious future, while also seizing upon the inherent collectivist nature of Irfan.

Socialism and private property

Sattari himself supported some elements of socialism, while rejecting others outright as intrinsically "anti-Zorasani in practice." Sattari approached socialism from were near exclusive economic point, arguing that "socialism proposes a series of economic methods that are key for the development of a society yet to reach to a point in economic capability." To Sattari, socialism specifically provided the means to assist the future unified Zorasan industrialise, urbanise and economically development toward the goal of "mobilising the nation to stand strong in the eternal struggle." The adoption of socialism within Sattarism and its subsequent contradiction of the ideology's rejection of class conflict and struggle was rectified by Sattari defining socialism within Sattarism as a "most accurate term to describe the approach to economic matters, an approach that provides for the people, rather than simply consuming from them. It is an economic method that is social in its production and social in its ends", more specifically, Sattari described socialism as the "equitable sharing of national resources from labour among its citizens." Sattarism claims that socialism can exist without a class struggle, especially if the state can mediate grievences between the worker and industrialist in its execution.

At the 1949 Party Congress of the Revolutionary Masses Party, the leadership under Sattari's direction,called for a future Zorasani economy to operate "just redistribution of wealth" (through universal health care, education and welfare), state ownership of public utilities, natural resources, large industries, transport, and state control over foreign and domestic trade, limiting agricultural holdings to the amount the owner could cultivate, workers' participation in management and profit sharing, respect for inheritance and the rights of private property. Following the establishment of the Union of Khazestan and Pardaran in 1953, the 1949 Congress' proposals were implemented across the newly formed state. In 1954, Ali Sayyad Gharazi, the successor to Mahrdad Ali Sattari attempted to further reconcile the socialism of Sattarism with its desire for a classless society by describing socialism as a "our socialism shall be a means to close the gap between Zorasan and its former oppressors economically, while ensuring that the working class does not find itself exploited, rather unified in endeavour with the business owners and capitalists." The lack of any certifiably capitalist middle class in the UKP assisted the government in claiming that it was not engaging in class struggle or a proletarian seizure of the means of production, as class differences did not exist, no group in society would be detrimentally effected.

On matters relating to private property, Sattari was a vocal defender, however, he aruged for an equitable approach that would serve to combat materialism, which he saw as the catalyst for indiviudalism and the breakdown of society. Sattari saw private property as a means of "calming the masses" and fostering Ettehâd, by giving every citizen a degree of dignity and purpose beyond serving the nation. Sattarism's vision of private property has been described as austere and rooted in Irfanic Asceticism. Sattari wrote, "to combat materialism and its spawn, individualism, the state must promote austerity in life. Never should the state take from the citizen what is theirs by result of their labours, but urge them to limit what is they pursue. Luxuries and ostenciousness in objects is the mindless pursuit of the dim and selfish. Own the basics and the minimum and you shall be set free from petty desires." Throughout the existence of the Union of Khazestan and Pardaran, the Sattarist government notably banned the import of certain fabrics to prohibit the production of luxury clothing, it also prohibited the import of luxury cars from Euclea and mandated a limit on the purchase of radios, television sets and even jewelry. Samir Shafawi described the Sattarist approach to private property as the "state-enforcement of austerity in service to the slogan, you may own property, you just do not need much of it."


Owing to the fact that the early authors of Sattarism all emerged from the Pardarian nationalist movement, anti-imperialism features prominently within the ideology and Sattarist rhetoric. While Sattari wrote extensively about the need of all Zorasanis to "raise their hands and clenched fists against the colonial", it was not until after his victory in the Pardarian Civil War that Sattari began to write anti-imperialism into the wider ideological framework. In keeping with Sattarism's embrace of militarism, Sattari saw a reunited Zorasan as a "central command for resistance against all forms of imperialism." He advocated for "perpetual resistance against any and all forms of foreign domination", within the Irfanic World and beyond.

Ideologically speaking, the Sattarist focus on anti-imperialism speaks to the need of vigilance against "Euclean influences" and underpins the above sections. A totalitarian-militarist state is required to preserve and protect Zorasani sovereignty and liberty and that a united Zorasan is required by virtue of its own success to assist the weak "in the eternal struggle." Sattari saw the world as one of perpetual warfare, if not constant military action, warfare in economics, science, medicine and education, to assist smaller and weaker nations against perceived Euclean domination would weaken their position and in turn empower Zorasan's, improving its chances of winning the final battle of the struggle.


During the period of Zorasani Unification (1950-1980), Sattarism emphasised Pan-Zorasanism, the reunification of all territories of the former Gorsanid Empire prior to the Etrurian conquest during the 19th century. Sattarism posists that rather than being a multi-ethnic society, the Gorsanid Empire and its predecessors since antiquity had by virtue of the near static borders, had established a unique and distinct group. Sattarist Zorasani nationalism is predicated around the rejection and opposition to ethnic and cultural identity outside of Zorasani, particularly Pardarian and Rahelian, it depicts the linguistic differences as superficial and rather sees them as complimentary to the "inclusive" nature of the Zorasani people. Sattarism and Sattari himself rarely utilised racial terminology in identifying the Zorasani people, having rejected race-based politics as inherently "Euclean" and a "tool of colonialisation" in the vein of divide and rule, however, during the 1950s, Sattarism saw repeated instances of the "Zorasani race" emerging in publications and rhetoric by senior ideologues.

There is imbued our great homeland a distinct and tangiable destiny, ever since our ancestors forged the firsting writing system in human history, ever since we built the first great cities we were set upon a path by the divine. Khoda, the mericful and just, has a plan for our homeland and it is to raise us up to greatness. Let there be superpowers of Euclea, let there be Xiaodong, but the Irfanic World shall be represented, Zorasan shall be reborn a superpower by the will of God himself.

Ali Sayyad Gharazi, 1973

The 1950s also saw the emergence of "civilisational greatness", by wedding the Zorasani identity to past dynasties, empires and the Irfanic Heavenly Dominions, Sattarists promoted the ideal that "within Zorasan rests a restless and immortal capacity for greatness and grand civilisation." As part of the wider effort to dismiss the existence of Pardarians, Rahelians and other ethnic groups within Zorasan, Sattarists posit that "Zorasan exists beyond what petty races and peoples are claimed to be, it is a product of a unique people. Zorasan is superior to any example of Rahelia, by virtue of its past. As exampled Rahelians travelled on camels from watering hole to watering hole, the people of Zorasan in classical times constructed canals, roads and great cities and forged a rival to the Solarian Empire. What were the camel herders doing?" However, the Sattarist's wedding of Zorasani society with historic Pardarian-led empires and states, they have claimed that these historic entities existed in equal measure due to the contributions of its constituent peoples, dismissing any Pardarian exceptionalism or leadership, though this has been used as evidence that Sattarism and the entire ediface of the Zorasani nation exists as a cover for Pardarian chauvinism and irredentism (See below).

This notion of civilisational greatness was further developed in the 1960s, with Ali Sayyad Gharazi's "Cycles of the Eternal Struggle", in which nations and peoples go through history ebbing and flowing in relation to Peykâr-e Jâvid, for a period they thrive and look set to break out of the eternal struggle and achieve perpetual peace, then fail and fall into "depsair." Gharazi sought to promote civilisational greatness with Sattarism's embrace of "modernity", in that pursuing economic and technological progress at all costs, Zorasan would defeat its enemies in the Eternal Struggle, this has led claims to an embrace of palingenesis, a great national rebirth that would lead to a near uptopian future. Gharazi also promoted the ideal of a divinely mandated destiny for Zorasan as the birthplace and leader of the Irfanic World. Following unification in 1980, Sattarism' version of nationalism changed dramatically, having established its unified state, nationalism changed to focus on national greatness and a notional superiority to other Irfanic states. Following the Turfan (2005-2006) specifically, nationalism has taken to ideologically promoting Zorasani leadership within the Irfanic World and a dominant position in northern Coius. In 2011, it was proclaimed a national objective to "further expand and widen the military, economic and diplomatic gap between the Union and its immediate neighbours of the North."

Richard Fontaine claims that Zorasani nationalism is rooted in the Sattarist moral code, which he described as procedural virtue ethics, as it demands obedience to a set of absolute virtues focused on social engineering and replaces basic common sense with a srict dogma of ideological virtues and commands. The ideal Zorasani citizen is to be a nation-conscious (conscious of their Zorasani identity) and a ideologically dedicated martial specimen that would work and commit acts for the sake of the Zorasani Ettehâd and do so, being convinced of that they're righteous and morally correct for doing so. As a result, those who reject their Zorasani consciousness are both morally flawed and virtuously crippled, outside the Ettehâd and ostensibly, an enemy of the Ettehâd.


During the 1970s, the Union of Khazestan and Pardaran underwent the Irfanisation process, which began at the 49th Party Congress of the Revolutionary Masses Party. The congress voted to abandon the tenet of socialism and replace it with commitments to Patriotic Capitalism and the end to universal secularism, by restoring the historic role of the Irfanic clergy. This was done near exclusively in response to the Irvadi Socialist Revolution in 1968 and its attacks on the Irfanic faith. However, despite the propaganda minded reasons, the ideological changes were embraced and swiftly enforced. By the time of unification in 1980, the Irfanisation process had led to the emergence of a state-backed Political Irfan and the inclusion of clerics within the party-state structure. However, economic reform in line with the adoption of Patriotic Capitalism took longer as party officials struggled to determine what it actually meant.

Javad Jahandar, the leader of the UKP during the unification process defined Patriotic Capitalism as the "opening of the economy to the drives and ambitions of the individual for the benefit of all." While Sattarism in its original form with socialism embraced private property, it had developed an entirely state-run economy with no private businesses operating outside of agriculture. This had led to significant shortfalls in targeted economic growth and development and shortages of basic consumer goods. This was justified through the Sattarist rejection of materialism and Northern consumerism as antithetical to the Ettehâd, as they promote grievances and class conflict. The Jahandar reforms of the 1980s, focused on promoting the emergence of private enterprise, though subordinate to the goals of the state. The reforms specifically ended state control over domestic trade, while retaining control over foreign trade for the benefit of regulating imports to aid emerging domestic producers, while laws and regulations on private enterprise were liberalised. Over 1,300 state-owned enterprises were either privatised or merged into larger conglomerates and the Jahandar policy of Oil to Factory was established; utilising oil revenues for use in constructing industrial zones for rent by private businesses. The Jahandar Reforms retained profit sharing and co-determination in only the most profitable and productive SOEs and promoted them in private enterprises, though it was declared optional for private business in 1988. In 1989, the country's ten state-controlled trade unions were merged into either the General Workers Federation or Irfanic Workers House, the same year a law was passed mandating that executive boards had at least one member of the National Renovation Front. Private enterprises involved in strategic areas of the economy would require a member of the armed forces and NRF on their boards.

The Saffron Era (1990-2005) reforms though significantly more aligned with neoliberalism did not remove state representation on boards, but did further open up non-strategic areas of the economy, including the abolition of certain workers rights and conditions. Following the Turfan, the restored Sattarist hardliner leadership scaled back the neoliberal tendancies of the reforms, but opted to retain them in areas of "future importance", notably research and development, artificial intelligence and information technology.

Jens Oberstein has described Patriotic Capitalism as a form of neomercantilism and state capitalism. He argues that the Zorasani party-state is intrinsically market and business friendly, but retains a shadowy hand and eye on the machinations of boards through its mandate "party-state members", not to control but to ensure that a corporations' actions and plans are geared toward growth, mass employment and profit. He also claims the Irfanisation process of the 1970s ensured that the reofrms introduced a degree of social responsibility to companies, which are rewarded by the state for profit-sharing and worker's participation in management, but also operating social programs aimed at "returning to the nation that made them." Guilia Moreno claims Neo-Sattarism is inherently a "religious-capitalist evolution of Sattarism, that abandoned the anti-Eucleanism and third worldism for a highly state-controlled and managed embrace of globalisation, that seeks to hasten economic growth on the state's terms." Samir Shafawi described Neo-Sattarism as the "natural evolution of modernity, in that the state pursues economic growth, development, improving living standards and technological advancement at all costs, it guides private business rather than dictates, but possesses the means to destroy any private business that dare put unrepentant profit seeking above its responsibility to aid the national objective of modernity."


Comparisons with Functionalism

National Renovationism has been repeatedly compared to Functionalism and National Solarianism, especially on grounds of the shared embrace of authoritarianism, palingenesis, anti-capitalism and nationalism. However, others have described the ideology as a unique evolution of Functionalism.

Hassan Sabir claims, “Sattarism does posses similarities to Functionalism, but to call it Zorasani Functionalism is a simplification. In reality, Sattarism draws upon influences but applies them in a manner unique to the setting, essentially moulding these influences around pre-existing Pardarian concepts and ideals. Sattarism is also more manachean, especially in reference to the Eternal Struggle between good and evil.” Others have argued that Sattarism is a more extreme version of Functionalism specifically on its totalitarian aspirations over authoritarian ones.

Key ideologues for their part have denounced comparisons, Ershad Radan in 1955 said, “to claim we inherited ideals from Euclean extremists is wrong. National Renovationism is the revolutionary path of the Zorasani people, to the end goal of never again permitting its people to be subordinated to the East.”

Pardarian Chauvinism

Ever since Sattarism was first developed, critics denounced it as a “Pardarian chauvinism dressed up as something else.” Its authors were all Pardarian and it evolved out of the Pardarian nationalist anti-colonial movement during the 1920s. It was not until the during the Pardarian Civil War, that Sattarists openly spoke of Zorasan and the Zorasani identity, when appealing to Rahelians.

Abdullah Al-Mualem, a prominent critic of the Sattarist regime during the 1950s and 1960s described Sattarism as, “a most cunning ideology devised by Pardarians who had to resolve the demise of a Pardarian Empire (Gorsanid) by restoring it. They knew that to restore it they had to approach the Rahelians long subjects of the Pardarian in a manner much different to before. Sattarism is Pardarian revanchism, irredentism and imperialism dressed up in a completely fabricated identity – Zorasani.”

Comments by Mahrdad Ali Sattari during the 1940s have been used by critics to further support the claims by Al-Mualem such as his infamous quote, "the Rahelian condition is that of perpetual adolensence, the Rahelian to use the Euclean term is a individual who requires leadership, better for the Pardarian that it be them than the Euclean, just as it was before the Euclean came."

Critics have referenced the greater effort at repressing the Rahelian identity within Zorasan than compared to the Pardarian as evidence of Sattarism’s Pardarian-centric nature. Sattarist ideological rhetoric since 1950 has consistently and at times, virulently dismissed any suggestion that Rahelia exists beyond a geographical expression. Sattarist historiography claims Rahelia, drawn from the Pardarian name Rahelistan (meaning Land of Travellers) was merely a term devised by past Pardarian empires to denote the expanse of territory inhabited by nomadic Rahelian tribes, and holds no cultural or ethnic substance. This is in comparison to Pardaran, which Sattarists consider the world’s first true organised civilisation and the birthplace of Northern Coian culture.

However, this accusation had been met with debate among Euclean academic circles who have countered by claiming Sattarism is indiscriminate in its cultural genocide, citing the destruction of numerous Pardarian ruins, or the outright modification of artefacts or ruins to fit their narrative. The ruins of Dezh Dokhtar for example saw their inscriptions on stone edifices either removed or altered to claim construction by the “Zorasani people.” The Zorasani government has also been known to completely fabricate historic Shahs to claim they were of “northern” (A political term for Rahelians) origin, rather than Pardarian.

Allegations of racism

Jean-Paul Bastien claims that Sattarism is racist and racially exclusive ideology. Bastien argues that the Sattarist definition of Zorasan is predicated around ethnic favoritism, "if you look at who in particular the Sattarists state are 'Zorasani', you'll find that roughly 20 million people are discarded. The only peoples deemed Zorasani are Pardarians (the ethno-linguistic group as a whole), Rahelians, Kexri and Togotis. Those of Bahian and South Coian ethnicity are excluded and the victimisation by the Sattarist state is further evidence of its racially exclusive ideology." While Sattarism and in particular the National Renovation Front does not operate an official policy of identifying or classifying individuals as Zorasani, certain minorities are excluded from party membership and even public sector jobs, primarily the Chanwanese, Yeniseisians and to a lesser degree those of Bahian origins. In a series of memos issued across the party in the 2010s, the NRF leadership stated, "it is paramount that the purity of the mission is matched by the purity of the Party. We cannot with certainty declare party members from Southern Coius, can be trusted as not to be separatist extremists infiltrating the party. Therefore, it is paramount committees ensure the protection of the Party through the removal and prohibition of Southern Coians being members."

One of the prominent criticism of Sattarism in relation to ethnicity is the apparent racism toward Rahelians beyond Zorasan's borders. As the Zorasani state rejects any identity cultural or ethnic outside Zorasani, it rejects the notion of a Rahelian homeland or Linguistic homeland. It has repeatedly countered Pan-Rahelianism as a product of foreign agendas and makes regular crackdowns on individuals who promote a Rahelian identity, this has led to a socio-political outlook toward northern Coius that has been described as xeonophobic, racist and even supremacist. Others have claimed Sattarism takes a paternalistic view toward the Rahelians of northern Coius, in similar fashion to the view held by historic Pardarian states. Others have countered the Rahelian racism accusation by referring to the approach taken toward the Pardarian and Kexri identities, in which both are equally repressed for the sake of the Sattari or Zorasani identity.

See also